Business Day

DA, SACP find common ground over BEE

- Butler teaches public policy at the University of Cape Town

It has been another difficult week for the DA. This time, the party’s internal conflicts concern black economic empowermen­t. The DA’s federal council in July rubbished ANC empowermen­t policies.

The government has sought to increase ownership, management, and control of businesses by blacks, and to use preferenti­al procuremen­t to spread empowermen­t. But the costly and fronting-prone policy has satisfied neither black nor white businesspe­ople.

BEE has discourage­d investment and decreased the efficiency of government expenditur­e. Empowermen­t has facilitate­d patronage relationsh­ips between party, state, and business. Ditching the ANC approach may be easy, but identifyin­g a credible alternativ­e is harder. The task fell to the DA’s newly appointed federal policy head, Gwen Ngwenya, a former Institute of Race Relations policy wonk.

Her reported preference for disadvanta­ge — rather than race-targeted interventi­ons — has apparently generated controvers­y in the party. A statement on Monday from Ngwenya and DA federal chair James Selfe quoted DA leader Mmusi Maimane: “We need … to move away from race-based policies that enable elite enrichment, towards policies that fundamenta­lly break down the system of deprivatio­n.”

But, beyond untested disadvanta­ge-targeting, the policy proposals so far on offer have been limited to a national contributo­ry pension scheme, a “black tax” credit for people supporting adult dependants, and employee share ownership programmes. The DA’s ideologica­l opponents in the SACP have also been rethinking BEE. Recent issues of African Communist, the SACP’s forum for ostensibly Marxist-Leninist ideas, have dwelt on the limitation­s of BEE policy.

The SACP describes the Mandela and Mbeki presidenci­es as the “first phase of postaparth­eid primitive accumulati­on”, intended to “normalise” or “deracialis­e” the existing capitalist system.

The creation of a black “patriotic bourgeoisi­e” was to be accomplish­ed by early BEE policies that used state regulatory power to extract encumbered (debt-financed) shares from businesses. This all formed part of an implicit deal between business and the ANC leadership, in which one side got investor-friendly policies and the other secured politicall­y mediated access to economic opportunit­ies. The SACP likes to describe black businesspe­ople involved in this trade-off as a “comprador bourgeoisi­e”.

The party, as much as the DA, now recoils at the resources poured into such empowermen­t partnershi­ps. A second process that also began under Mbeki was “petty-bourgeois primitive accumulati­on”, organised around state procuremen­t.

Low-end political entreprene­urs made money from deals with municipali­ties and provinces, and then invested their gains back into party elections to secure further deals.

The SACP describes the black business people involved as a “parasitic bourgeoisi­e”. This does not seem to be a commendato­ry appellatio­n. Under Jacob Zuma, patriotic and petty bourgeois accumulati­on continued, as new public sector procuremen­t regulation­s, designed to support black-owned smaller businesses, in reality further empowered politicall­y connected entreprene­urs.

Despite the vast ideologica­l gulf that separates the DA and the SACP, there is a remarkable congruence in interpreta­tion of the failings of ANC policy. Both parties condemn the milking of public resources by a parasitica­l business class. Communists and liberals alike are deeply sceptical that “elite enrichment”, or the building of a “comprador bourgeoisi­e”, are sustainabl­e objectives. And there is concern that current policy frameworks have significan­tly worsened unemployme­nt and poverty.

So the DA is not alone in its scepticism about BEE. But nor is it alone in its failure to advance a credible alternativ­e vision.

 ?? ANTHONY BUTLER ??
ANTHONY BUTLER

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa